Like others, I became aware of the apologies expressed to the First Nations peoples for what happened in the residential schools run by religious bodies. These apologies found a welcome audience in religious communities. Not so among the First Nations and the general public. This reaction mystified church-goers. We apologized, they thought, what more do they want? The reason became clear after a careful analysis of the language of the apologies revealed their limitations.

Between 1986 and 1998 the United Church of Canada (1986 and 1998), the Presbyterian Church in Canada (1994), the Anglican Church of Canada (1993), the Catholic Church (National Meeting 1991), and the Oblate Order (Catholic) (1991) made six statements of apology to the First Nations. Dr. Janet Bavelas, Professor of Psychology at the University of Victoria, in “An Analysis of Formal Apologies by Churches in Canada to First Nations” (2004) (unpublished) studied the language of these apologies. Her analysis indicated that “most of the churches’ references to their offenses avoided describing themselves as agents of wrongful actions.” Among other expressions of avoiding direct responsibility, Bavelas referred to their use of the passive voice to distance the agent or not even naming the agent at all, the use of infinitives to distance the action from the agent, and other methods of evasion. With almost no exception they never took direct responsibility by naming themselves as the agents of offences. A common formula, taken from the Presbyterian apology, illustrates this: “There was opportunity for sexual abuse, and some were so abused.”

A complete apology names the agent who is now sorry, identifies the offence committed and the victim who suffered the offence, and then takes realistic steps toward reconciliation. Without that, apologies are not complete.

In 2008 the Canadian government used much more explicit language to apologize to the First Nations for the wrongs done them in the Residential Schools of Canada, and set in motion the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to hear the stories in full. Unfortunately this same government cancelled the Kelowna Accord, and the commission is mired in bickering among its members. The words have not produced the deeds.

The gathering of First Nations with Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 provided another opportunity to make a more complete statement of apology. Not so. Benedict allowed no disclosure of his actual words to them. Judging from comments made by First Nations leaders, the language remained the same as before.

Pope Benedict’s letter to the Irish Catholic Church in March 2010 uses exactly the same language. “It must be admitted that grave errors of judgment were made and failures of leadership occurred.” He offered no concrete plans to right the situation.

The publication of the abuses perpetrated in the Residential Schools made it necessary for the churches to make apologetic statements. The countless examples all over the world of clerical abuse of children has forced the church to issue statements of apology. Their choice of language demonstrates how reluctant they are to take full and clear responsibility for their actions. Why did churches resort to evasive language when voicing their apologies? Did the churches in Canada agree with the government’s policy of assimilation? If so, did they also agree on the way it was to be accomplished? Would any family of these church communities agree to the removal of their children from the bosom of the family into a completely foreign environment where they could not speak their own language, engage in any of their familiar patterns of behavior, or participate in their traditional rituals?

If there is any reasonable explanation for the churches’ imperfect apologies, part of the answer lies in the belief within these institutions that they possess a divine character. Admission of guilt would cast doubt on the legitimacy of their claim of being founded by God or Jesus Christ, or on the validity of their claim to teach, to preach, to baptize, to convert the rest of the world to their beliefs. They simply cannot and will not admit failure to live up to their own moral code.

I do not wish to argue the legitimacy or the logic of any Christian Church’s claim to divine origin. Since I am most familiar with my own church, I will confine my remarks to the Roman Catholic tradition.

The language used to describe the church reveals the fundamental attitude toward the church as institution: “The City of God,” “Perfect Society,” “Holy Mother Church,” “Mystical Body of Christ,” and “Spotless Bride of Christ.” These expression reveal a culture of both respect and impregnability. Church leaders by divine right of ordination identify themselves as that church. Despite the collegial teachings of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960’s, the Catholic hierarchy does not in practice accept that lay people are an essential part of the Catholic Church. When they use the word “church” in such sentences as “the church teaches,” they see only the hierarchical component.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches, particularly after the Protestant Reformation, that it is the only true church founded by Jesus Christ on the twelve apostles. Therefore, it is the only road to salvation. The Roman Magisterium (teaching authority) reiterated that tenet in July 2007, stating that others should not even be using the word “church” in speaking of themselves. They ought to use the term “ecclesial communities” because they are imperfect, having lost the apostolic succession and therefore lack a valid priesthood.

The language used to describe the priest as an “alter Christus” is also instructive. The priests acts “in personal Christi” when doing the sacraments. No matter how poorly he does things, the sacraments are effective, ex opere operato. This creeps into everything he does. He can do no wrong. To question him is to question Jesus Christ/God.

In addition to the tenet of divine institution, the Catholic Church claims infallibility in its pronouncements on faith and morals. This doctrine was defined in 1871 at the First Vatican Council. Infallibility establishes an atmosphere of intolerance. Every statement emanating from the pope or any Roman office seems to demand absolute adherence. Bishops the world over claim, or act as if they claim, a share in that infallibility. It filters down to priests and religious. From childhood, Catholic children have generally been taught never to doubt or question the priest under pain of sin, no matter how ignorant the man might be. If they hear it from the pulpit, it must be true.

As chief spokesmen of a divine and infallible church, the clergy acquire a tremendous sense of power coupled with a desperate fear of anything that might erode that power. They live in a world of narcissistic entitlement.

They also live in fear. I believe that abject fear is behind many of the decisions and practices of the hierarchy. Fear demands certitude. Fear allows no questions, no doubts. Fear commands them never to think. Fear demands absolute answers and an unchanging ideology. Fear petrifies the petrine offices.

When I was a monk, Abbot Severin Gertken called his status “the grace of office.” Once he became abbot, his word was the word of God. To disobey him was to disobey God. He claimed an indisputable right to determine the will of God for each of his monks.

A clear expression of that mentality occurred during a meeting of the lay Religious Educators (of which I was one) in the Archdiocese of Seattle in the mid 1990’s. After a period of liberal change in attitude and practice under Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen, a more conservative administration took charge and began to wear down the rights which lay employees of the archdiocese had won. At that meeting the lay educators of the parishes expressed concern that they were no longer being consulted on matters affecting them. One of the Archdiocesan officials blurted out, “Face it, people, you are not part of the official structure of the church.” These are not isolated examples.

This same attitude crops up in the countless cases of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy in North America and the world. Doyle, Sipe and Wall, in Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes; the Catholic Church’s 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse, 2006, outline the story in detail. American bishops consistently and systematically evade the truth about their knowledge of the sexual abuses done by their clergy. When confronted with their own letters proving their awareness, their typical response is, “I must have forgotten that.”

They use every legal tactic available to defend the good name of the church (themselves). In doing so, they often go to the lengths of intimidating victims, stigmatizing them as enemies of the priesthood and the church. That makes the victims feel guilty for what happened to them or for speaking out about it.

The recent revelation in Canada of Bishop Raymond Lacey’s involvement with child pornography and Archbishop Mancini’s comments reveal that nothing has changed in the mentality of the hierarchy. Lacey told his parishioners that he was taking some “much needed time for personal renewal.” Mancini called Lacey to offer prayers, and told a reporter (Globe and Mail, October 2, 2009) that the church is made up of many individuals beset with problems and “there but for the grace of God go any number of people.” He expressed compassion for Lacey, but precious little for his victims.

Even the most ardent and loyal Catholics are beginning to voice their abhorrence for the “sins of the Fathers” and the persistent sidestepping of responsibility. They feel betrayed by their leaders.

The abuses suffered by the First Nations in the Residential Schools of Canada are part of the larger and continuous history of abuse by Catholic clergymen. Now that the veil of secrecy has finally been removed, the hierarchy has not found an honest way to deal with it.

Strange as it may seem, the Catholic Church does have a perfect and radical and healthy solution: full confession. Very early in their instruction, Catholic children are taught the Act of Contrition. The following prayer is entrusted to memory:

O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend thee, my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.

If this Act of Contrition were couched in the same language as church apologies referred to above, it would sound like this:

O my God, I am so terribly sorry, more than I can say, that you were offended and I hate what happened. It was an unfortunate exception. I sincerely hope that nothing like this will ever happen again and that steps will be taken to prevent anything like it in the future. Amen.

The second version acknowledges no personal responsibility for the sins committed. If Catholic authorities were to follow the spirit and the language of the traditional Act of Contrition, their apology statement would sound something like this:

We, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and the superiors of Religious Orders, along with our priests, brothers, and sisters, confess that we have sinned against you, the First Nations peoples of Canada, in our Residential Schools. As a Church, we used our power to undermine your culture, your languages, your family values, and your sense of worth. Some of our members abused your children physically, psychologically, sexually, emotionally, and spiritually. Their superiors were aware of many, or even most, of these evil actions but ignored them and did nothing to stop them. We paid no mind to your efforts to tell us of the terrible damage we were doing. We fully acknowledge our responsibility at all levels of the Church and beg your forgiveness. We will engage in a process of reconciliation with you, and will take steps to prevent any future repetitions of these abuses.

We also renounce excuses that we have previously used to obscure our responsibility. Although the government of Canada owned the schools, we confess that it was our members on the front lines who actually did the abusing.

We can point to hundreds of our members who were kind and understanding, who did all they could to protect your children and minimize the hurts, who were sincere in their commitment to educate your children, to help them grow into good people. While we take pride in their work, we must also admit the wrongs other members did and which their superiors ignored.

They would then follow this with a similar statement regarding the criminal abuse of

children by priests.# It would sound something like this:

# We, the hierarchs of the Roman Catholic Church, from the pope down to the local priests, as well as the superiors and members of religious orders, confess to God and to the people of the world that we have sinned.

We have raped and sodomized and otherwise abused countless young boys and girls as well as adult men and women; we have covered up these and other heinous crimes; we have engaged in a policy of shifting known predators to other assignments where they could continue to abuse; we have refused to consider the harm done to these individuals, to their families, and to the social fabric of the church and the world; we have used our authority to inflict great harm psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually; we have instituted training methods that guarantee that these abuses continue; and we have hidden these and other sins under the cloak of divine authority.

We have used theological principles regarding the priesthood which have made it impossible for the lay members of the church to question our authority. We have used sacramental theology describing priests as acting in the person of Christ, putting them on pedestals so that lay members of the church are forced to consider them above criticism.

We confess that we have arrogated to ourselves all authority within the church. We have consistently used the word “church” to define ourselves, as in phrases like “the church teaches.” In practice, we have made lay members of the church see themselves as second class citizens who have no right to question what we do or what we teach. We have consistently refused to answer to civil authority for the crimes which we have committed.

We have done all these things knowingly and willingly. We nonetheless beg forgiveness for these and all our sins and pledge ourselves to work with every means available to make up for these wrongs and to do what is necessary to prevent, as far as humanly possible, these sins and crimes to occur in the future. In order to accomplish this we will institute listening sessions with both victims and experts whose purpose it will be to introduce and carry out plans of action that are both realistic and effective.

Such explicit and clear admission of full responsibility would be a most powerful statement, and would go a long way to restore some of the credibility lost in the earlier apologies. Without full confession, sins are not forgiven, neither by God nor by the community.  The truth, and only the truth, the full and unvarnished truth, is the road to freedom from the mess.  Truth in words is useless if not followed up with the deeds that flow from that truth.  That is what is not happening in these apology statements:  the words are equivocal, the deeds are non-existent

The Church proudly claims to be the guiding light for private and public morality to the extent of arguing that there is no basis for morality in secular philosophy. However, it is one thing to teach morality in word. It is quite another thing to teach morality in action. By their unwillingness or inability or refusal to take full responsibility for the sins of their members, church authorities have effectively chosen to abandon the high moral ground, have eroded confidence in the public forum, and have contributed to a high degree of cynicism in the world at large. I believe that the churches have seriously compromised their right to make moral pronouncements. They have acted exactly like the corporations they so often disparage. Protect the business, the institution, regardless of the rights of the individuals who suffer at their hands. Religious institutions have no business acting like secular corporations. They must hold themselves to the same moral standard which they enjoin upon their followers.

Full confession is the first step in the process of reconciliation. It is not too late to start over. It would be unbelievably liberating for all of us, the Catholic hierarchy, and the Catholic laity.